Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/st...p-225644c.html

    (By Mitch Lawrence)

    NBA in the spirit of giving

    Christmas games put league's biggest feuds on holiday stage

    Shaquille O'Neal
    It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas: In Indianapolis, that means extra security on hand for the first game between the Pacers and Pistons since "that thing," as Larry Brown called what everyone else knows as the riot at Auburn Hills. Out in Los Angeles, it's going to mean Kobe Bryant invoking the Christmas spirit and telling Shaquille O'Neal that he's sorry.

    Yes, peace on earth and good will toward man is the theme on Saturday in the only two scheduled NBA games. Just how long it lasts is anyone's guess.

    You'd think the Pacers and Pistons will be on their best behavior. But the league is not taking any chances.

    According to one NBA official, the league is sending a squadron of security officials to Conseco Fieldhouse to ensure that there is no repeat of the ugly events of Nov. 19. At last count, David Stern is going to have to shell out holiday pay to 14 members of his security force.

    As was the case in the Garden last week - when the league agreed with the Knicks' assessment that security should be tightened for the Pistons' first game in New York, and sent a starting five of security officials to work the game - most of the extra secuirty personnel will be posted behind the Detroit bench. The primary concern will be to keep Pacers fans, who can be as loud and ugly as the foul-mouthed hooligans in the Palace of Auburn Hills, a safe distance from Ben Wallace.

    Wallace, one of the chief combatants in Detroit and subject of a six-game suspension, is grateful for the preferential treatment he'll be getting Saturday.

    "We've gotten extra security in a couple of other arenas," he said. "I guess the league and the teams are doing it as a precautionary thing. That's fine with me. It's good. I'm just minding my own business and playing basketball."

    Before the Pistons and Pacers gave the league a black eye for Christmas, the much-ballyhooed reunion of Kobe and Shaq was expected to be the main event. With Bryant's reputation continuing to plummet, Bryant went on the public-relations stump this past week. He first attempted to smooth over the Karl Malone affair, after he and his wife, Vanessa, trashed the Mailman for attempting to hit on Mrs. Bryant.

    Bryant also intends to use the Christmas stage to apologize to O'Neal. Not for pulling his monumental power play that ended with Phil Jackson leaving and O'Neal packing his bags for Miami. Not for all the times he veered away from Jackson's triangle and didn't get the ball to O'Neal. This goes way back to when Bryant faced rape charges in Eagle, Colo. During his infamous Q&A session with investigators, which told everyone everything they needed to know about Bryant, he mentioned that he had heard that Shaq had paid up to $1 million to various women to keep quiet when O'Neal was caught in the same kinds of, er, "situations" that Bryant found himself in.

    "I never intended in any way to mix him into my troubles and difficulties that were going on at the time," Bryant said last week. "December 25 seems like a good day to kind of talk to him and tell him I never meant in any kind of way to bring any of his personal business out."

    Even with that explanation, Bryant still is implying that O'Neal did, in fact, use hush money to solve extra-marital dalliances. O'Neal has called that "ridiculous." To this day, Shaq has no love lost for his old teammate. Christmas spirit or not, that doesn't figure to change on Saturday in L.A.

    Under the Gundy

    The Rockets lost again? Blame Jeff Van Gundy.

    Tracy McGrady couldn't find his offense? Blame Jeff Van Gundy.

    Houston is a punchless bunch of plodders? Blame Jeff Van Gundy.

    Yao Ming and McGrady aren't the second coming of Shaq and Kobe?

    Blame Jeff Van Gundy.

    Steve Francis is having a career season in Orlando? Blame Jeff Van Gundy.

    That's how it goes in Houston these days. With all the trouble the Rockets have been having, and all the grief Van Gundy has been taking, you'd think that the ex-Knick coach has been the coach-GM for the past five years.

    In fact, the Rockets, who entered the weekend two games under .500, are paying for some pretty bad personnel decisions that were all made before Van Gundy arrived. But since he is now the face of the team, you never hear a disparaging word about the job long-time GM Carroll Dawson has done.

    From 2000-2003, here are the Rockets' first-round draft picks, off four straight lottery finishes:

    2000: Joel Przybilla, whom they turned into Jason Collier on draft day. Collier played in 61 games for the Rockets over three seasons, was released and is playing in Atlanta.

    2001: Richard Jefferson, Jason Collins and Brandon Armstrong, whom they parlayed into Eddie Griffin on draft day. The Nets struck gold with this one, while Griffin's days in Houston were marked by arrests and a substance abuse problem. He's now playing in Minnesota.

    2002: Yao Ming and Bostjean Nachbar. Yao plays almost every night, but he has not been anything close to a genuine impact player, even if he is No. 1 among all vote-getters for this year's All-Star Game. Nachbar is a backup.

    2003: None.

    When you finish in the lottery four straight seasons, you can't come away with only one good player. Dawson and owner Les Alexander were wholeheartedly behind the McGrady trade, which sent Francis, Cuttino Mobley and Kelvin Cato to Orlando. Even if Francis is flourishing, it's comical that the Rockets have been criticized for breaking up a team that had averaged 38 wins and didn't make the playoffs from 2000-03.

    "It's not like they broke up the '27 Yankees," said one Western Conference coach.

    Dawson hasn't been able to land a point guard, even when Darrell Armstrong was available. Under their GM's watch, the Rockets have become an older, slow-footed team. At least their current stretch of schedule - six straight games versus Charlotte or lottery teams from last year - could get things turned around.

    "We've been in the muck long enough," Van Gundy said after a win to start the favorable stretch, against the lowly Hawks. "I'm going to keep tinkering until we get our chemistry right. When we get our chemistry right, you'll see a better product on the floor."

    Slam Dunks

    # The Pacers picked up Michael Curry, who was called "Sir Snitch" by his Toronto teammates for passing along inside locker room info to coaches.

    # Arbitrator Roger Kaplan's ruling on the appeals cases of four Pacers players suspended for fighting with fans in Detroit last month is expected to come down any day. "Hopefully, we can get a ruling so that Jermaine (O'Neal) can play Christmas Day against the Pistons," said Billy Hunter, the NBA Players Association chief. The union and league agree that the case is headed to federal court, to be resolved fairly quickly.

    Originally published on December 19, 2004
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

    Is it just me or does it seem strange that they are bringing in extra security to Conseco (I thought the incident happened at the Palace), and it seems strange that the league is supplying the Pistons extra security on the road.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

      AAAhhh but the innocent Pistons need protection from the evil Pacers!

      It just adds to the "campaign" to who to blame for the incident, perception is all it is, of course no mention of extra protection for "visitors" benches in the Palace, because nothing would ever happen there no would there?
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        Is it just me or does it seem strange that they are bringing in extra security to Conseco (I thought the incident happened at the Palace), and it seems strange that the league is supplying the Pistons extra security on the road.
        Let's just say, hypothetically, that the Pistons beat the Pacers badly at Conseco, and Ben Wallace has a big game. All it would take is a few idiot fans thinking "I'll rile up Ben Wallace and get him to attack me and ruin the Pistons' season just like the Pacers' season got ruined."

        For the record, no matter the outcome of the game, I don't anticipate any problems on Christmas day. I think Pacer fans are out to prove they're classier and better fans than those in Detroit. However, all it takes is a couple of idiots to change that, which is why extra security is necessary. I don't think it's a reflection on the Pacers fans at all.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

          "Hopefully, we can get a ruling so that Jermaine (O'Neal) can play Christmas Day against the Pistons," said Billy Hunter, the NBA Players Association chief. The union and league agree that the case is headed to federal court, to be resolved fairly quickly.

          :drools:

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

            I don't blame Stern. The Conseco crowds have been ugly and riotous since the Palace mess
            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

              Originally posted by LouisvilleLip
              "Hopefully, we can get a ruling so that Jermaine (O'Neal) can play Christmas Day against the Pistons," said Billy Hunter, the NBA Players Association chief. The union and league agree that the case is headed to federal court, to be resolved fairly quickly.

              :drools:
              Yes I hope Santa Brings me a J.O Christmas DAY !!!!!!!!!!



              btw LouisvilleLip , Awesome SIG
              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                Originally posted by LouisvilleLip
                "Hopefully, we can get a ruling so that Jermaine (O'Neal) can play Christmas Day against the Pistons," said Billy Hunter, the NBA Players Association chief. The union and league agree that the case is headed to federal court, to be resolved fairly quickly.

                :drools:
                Wouldn't that be awesome!?!Anyone else think they are compromising a deal since we havn't heard anything this week?
                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                  I'm hoping that's what is going on, but I won't go so far to say I think they are, which would imply I expect it to happen.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                    Originally posted by shags
                    Let's just say, hypothetically, that the Pistons beat the Pacers badly at Conseco, and Ben Wallace has a big game. All it would take is a few idiot fans thinking "I'll rile up Ben Wallace and get him to attack me and ruin the Pistons' season just like the Pacers' season got ruined."

                    For the record, no matter the outcome of the game, I don't anticipate any problems on Christmas day. I think Pacer fans are out to prove they're classier and better fans than those in Detroit. However, all it takes is a couple of idiots to change that, which is why extra security is necessary. I don't think it's a reflection on the Pacers fans at all.

                    Let's just say hypotetically that a Pacers fan does do something to get Ben Wallace to come into the stands, what would Stern do? I would be very surprised if he did anything to the defending champs. He doesn't want to tarnish their championship in any way, hence the extra security he is providing them. Sounds to me like he realizes they were at fault for the riot and that he was too easy on them. Why else would he provide them (and not other teams) the extra security?
                    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                      1) There has been plenty of media coverage about the added security to the Palace, its just not covered in this article because neither Christmas game is taking place there.

                      2) Of course the security is behind the visitor bench. Fans don't usually attack their own team.

                      3) As for bringing in security at all ... if they didn't bring security and something happened, Stern and the league would look pretty assinine. They've sent extra security other places, why take it as a personal insult that they are doing it in Indiana as well?

                      This does raise one question in my mind though, have you guys heard of extra security being sent specifically to Pacer road games (like the article mentions it sent to the Piston v Knick game)?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                        Originally posted by fwpacerfan
                        Let's just say hypotetically that a Pacers fan does do something to get Ben Wallace to come into the stands, what would Stern do? I would be very surprised if he did anything to the defending champs. He doesn't want to tarnish their championship in any way, hence the extra security he is providing them. Sounds to me like he realizes they were at fault for the riot and that he was too easy on them. Why else would he provide them (and not other teams) the extra security?
                        If Ben Wallace charged a fan at Conseco Fieldhouse, Stern would suspend him for the season. In fact, if ANY player charged the stands at ANY arena, Stern would suspend that player for the season. Depending on the player, it may be more.

                        And if the Pistons continue to play the way they're playing as of now, they won't need any help in tarnishing their championship.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                          Originally posted by Fool
                          This does raise one question in my mind though, have you guys heard of extra security being sent specifically to Pacer road games (like the article mentions it sent to the Piston v Knick game)?
                          I think everybody knows that won't be a problem until/if Ron returns to the Pacers. If there anybody has learned the lesson Stern was trying to teach, its the 12 guys we've got suiting up now.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                            Originally posted by shags
                            If Ben Wallace charged a fan at Conseco Fieldhouse, Stern would suspend him for the season. In fact, if ANY player charged the stands at ANY arena, Stern would suspend that player for the season. Depending on the player, it may be more.
                            The way Stern works - the next player (and hopefully it never happens but if it does then I hope its Kobe) that charges into the stands will be suspended for much longer than Ron.

                            Stern likes to increase the punishment until the 'message' is sent. Why else would Ron get four games for the stuff in Miami after he got three games for destroying the HDTV camera after he kept misbehaving after a few one-game punishments? Were those 'crimes' against basketball progressively worse? No. Stern was just trying to figure out how to get Ron's attention.

                            Why else would Ron get a 72-game punishment for this incident? If the ten games given to Vernon Maxwell was a stiff enough punishment to convince *all players* not to do ever do that again (and certainly don't bring anybody else with you), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Is 'rest of the season' enough to get everyone's attention? No player (that we know of) has tried to strangle his coach, since Sprewell. So maybe it is, but if it isn't, look for Stern to come down even harder - especially if it is another 'repeat offender'.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: added security to CFH by Stern and titbit on Kaplan

                              I would assume you are probably right.

                              I wanted to know tho, to judge whether or not the security was following the players (Pacers and Pistons) or whether it was following the fans (New York, Detroit, Indiana). I assumed it was the fans and hearing that security hasn't been added to any Pacer road games seems to support that.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X